9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the assessee had not furnished requisite details before the lower authorities for claiming such deduction in AY 2010-11 - Admittedly, this deduction cannot be allowed in the assessment year under consideration as warranty provision was allowed on actual basis. However, the actual claim of assessee that it should be allowed as a deduction in AY 2010-11 on the ground that it was offered to tax in AY 2011-12, requires examination of the records by the AO on production of the same by the assessee in the relevant AY 2010-11. This claim of assessee cannot be considered in the present AY 2008-09, as the AY 2010-11 or 2011-12 is not before us for adjudication. The assessee may take appropriate remedial action in the relevant assessment year, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since the impugned claim of provision for warranty did not relate to the year under consideration, the same is not allowable. 2.4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that the impugned deduction can be claimed only by filing revised returns of income for respective years, by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd v CIT 284 ITR 323. 3. Grounds relating to reversal of provision in subsequent years 3.1. The learned AO and CIT(A) have erred in not appreciating the fact that impugned provision disallowed is subsequently reversed to the extent of ₹ 1,63,40,806 in financial year 2009-10 which has suffered tax in the said year. Therefore, only the balance amount of provision of ₹ 3,92,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 462,90,59,697 Add: Claim of excess warranty provision 1,67,32,832 Revised Total Income 464,57,92,529 Tax thereon @ 30% 139,37,37,759 Surcharge @ 10% 13,93,73,776 Education Cess @ 3% 4,59,93,346 Total Tax Payable 157,91,04,880 Less: Relief 2,20,588 Tax Payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,47,658 vide assessment order giving effect to ITAT order for AY 2008-09 on 20.1.2016. However, since the order giving effect to ITAT order for AY 2008-09 was not passed at the time of passing the order giving effect to 263 order on 28.9.2015, the AO had not considered it. However, this was noticed by the CIT(Appeals) and he has given a direction to reduce the original TP adjustment from ₹ 97,82,11,238 to ₹ 14,18,47,658. In other words, the AO is directed by the CIT(A) to start the computation of total income as mentioned in Order Giving Effect to the ITAT order dated 20.1.2016. 8. With regard to disallowance of warranty provision of ₹ 1,67,32,832, we find that the CIT(Appeals) in his order passed u/s. 263 observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be disallowed by the CIT(Appeals) in his order u/s. 263 dated 26.3.2015. The same was complied by the AO in his Order Giving Effect to the 263 order passed us/. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 28.9.2015. Now the contention of the ld. AR is that if it is disallowed in AY 2008-09, the same should be allowed in AY 2010-11 on the ground that it has offered the amount in AY 2011-12. 9. The contention of the ld. DR is that the assessee had not furnished requisite details before the lower authorities for claiming such deduction in AY 2010-11. 10. Admittedly, this deduction cannot be allowed in the assessment year under consideration as warranty provision was allowed on actual basis. However, the actual claim of assessee that it should be allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
